The Price of Prestige

106 chapter four

communication, social bonds, and hierarchical structures regardless of the

material value of the gift (Offer 1997 , 451 ; Hyde 2007 ; Fiske 1990 ). Under-

standing international prosociality as part of the gift economy highlights

these social and political dynamics. Viewing process benefits as externali-

ties overlooks the social and political role of the gift economy. The cre-

ation of social hierarchy and protection of social bonds are often the main

goals of the exchange, the material gift being but a symbol of the political

undertones.

Analyzing international prosociality as gift giving brings the role of

conspicuous consumption to the forefront. The link between prosocial

ex change and the formation of hierarchical relations is central to this argu-

ment. In many societies higher status is established and preserved through

acts of giving — a sort of noblesse oblige (Malinowski 1932 ; Fiske 1990 ;

Sahlins 1972 , 132 – 52 ; de Waal 2007 , 199 ). Giving transforms hierarchical

structures from ones that rely on domination through brute force to ones

that rely on the more subtle workings of prestige. Thus, for example, gift

giving often accompanies the conclusion of international conflicts. The

Marshall Plan and American investment in Japan at the end of World War II

signaled a shift toward cooperative relations while bolstering American

dominance. The end of the Vietnam War, conversely, was not accompa-

nied by an equivalent exchange or by a similar transformation of the rela-

tions between the adversaries (Hyde 2007 ). A closer look at the politics

of gift giving is instructive.

In a classic study of social comparison processes Leon Festinger de-

scribes an experiment conducted to study competition among children:

Greenberg ran an experiment with children in which they needed to

take blocks out of a common pile and build something with them. Tak-

ing blocks was deemed a competitive behavior whereas giving blocks to

another child was deemed noncompetitive. The observers noted that when

a child’s construction was much better than his peer’s, he tended to be

helpful and offer blocks. After that help, the two constructions were almost

identical, but both children agreed that the helping child’s construction

was better. “Sometimes when a child gave another a ‘stone,’ it was not at

all an act of disinterested generosity, but a display of friendly competition

and superior skill” (Festinger 1954 , 128 ; Greenberg 1932 ). As this experi-

ment demonstrates, prosociality offers a relatively reliable index of the

helping child’s ability and hence establishes his superior position vis- à-

vis the recipient. Consequently, being a recipient is a sign of weakness

and need.